RAJENDRA RISHIDEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE petitioner is a retail dealer under the provision of Bihar Trade Licence Unification Order, 1984. He is a dealer under the Public Distribution System. An inspection was conducted with regard to his business and consequent thereto, a First Information Report was lodged. This was informed to the Sub -Divisional Officer, who is the licensing authority. The licensing authority suspended the licence of the petitioner in view of pendency of the criminal case after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, he has recommended to the Collector for restoration of the licence. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that suspension cannot be for a period exceeding 90 days. The Collector is not doing anything in the matter even though, the Sub - Divisional Officer has recommended for revocation of the suspension. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, I would only like to point out that suspension under the provision of Clause 11 of Bihar Trade Articles Licence (Unifications) Order, 1984. is of two devices. Firstly, an interim suspension pending final adjudication in the licence matter and secondly, suspension after show cause notice by way of punishment. In the present case, it is clear that the order of suspension of petitioner 'slicence was passed after issuance of notice to the petitioner. As such, the order of suspension is as a matter of substantive punishment. But, the fact remains that it was a suspension and not cancellation. Suspension cannot be ad infinitum. It has to be limited in time i.e. the essential difference between suspension and cancellation. Another fact which the authorities have lost sight is that the petitioner is a retail licensee and so far he is concerned, the licensing authority under the provision of Unification Order is the Sub -Divisional Officer, itself. It is in exercise of the said power, the Sub -Divisional Officer suspended the licence of the petitioner. If the Sub -Divisional Officer is satisfied that the suspension should be recalled and/or revoked, he has not to seek any guidance or approval from the Collector of the District. Collector of the District at best is the appellate authority and being as such cannot dictate or direct what is to be done by the licensing authority i.e. the Sub -Divisional Officer.

(3.) I , therefore, dispose of the writ application with a direction to the respondent -Sub -Divisional Officer to reconsider the matter in view of his recommendation for recalling the suspension order and pass appropriate orders on his own acting as the licensing authority.